BBTV

Actually, I wonder if gamblers or gambling sites could sue or take any kind of action when a coach freely admits that a game was a “scheduled loss”. I wonder if he says “schedule loss”, like they’re blaming it on the schedule as opposed to having the game already circled as one where nobody was going to play.

Oh sure - it’s insane that Glenn says that. I suppose the difference is that the Mavs have basically said they’re done for the year, even before being mathematically eliminated - and (correct me if I’m wrong) being on the edge of losing a protected draft pick, so they’re also operating in bad faith against whoever would get that pick. Tanking a game is harder to police than tanking your chance at making the playoffs. The Sixers also said their top 6 won’t play the final 2 games, so that’s also questionable from an ethical standpoint - but lots of teams do that, and they’re already locked in and not messing up anyone else’s season.

I’m not sure what DSA is, but that’s simply my observation from my eyes and other people I know that stopped following or caring after the lockout (even during the 2010 run). But that doesn’t mean it’s definitely true, it’s just my observations and not backed by any data. For basically the whole 90s and early 00s, every game was basically sold out (there probably is stats on that) and it was the hardest ticket to get. Prices were ridiculously high and it became mostly corp tix. Now they have to run promotions, which at one time would have been unheard of. There’s still no way the poors are going, but maybe it’s easier now for regular folk (though ironically, most don’t care even though they can finally go). They also created what the Inquirer called a “hipster lounge” in the Center. Basically an area upstairs with couches and more of a lounge atmosphere where you could hang, whether or not you cared about the game (or your SO could hang with other of her friends while you and your boys watched the game). That flopped, obviously. I don’t pay attention to the goings on anymore other than what I read on blogs or talk to a few people about, so take my views with a grain of salt, but back in the Snider days, even when there was a bad year, you trusted that he would spend whatever it took or do whatever in order to fix it. Now, even if they have a good season somehow, it’ll be looked at as a fluke and the atmosphere will never go back. Again - I can’t stress enough that this is just my opinion based on what I encounter in my environment. Bigger fans might view it differently. Arguably the biggest problem with the Flyers has ALWAYS been their loyalty to the guys from the 70s. Whether Bobby Clarke, Paul Holmgren, Bill barber, et al being involved in coaching, GMing, or advising, they’re stuck in an era that doesn’t exist anymore. There was recently an article about how even when Chuck Fletcher - the rare outsider brought in to be a GM - was in charge, there was literally a “council of elders” that could veto decisions and advised the Comcast suit that was running the Flyers on matters of hockey - again, with the 70s mentality. They were not consulted with Fletcher’s firing and Briere’s rise, and there’s some hope that they might finally be put out to pasture. Seriousky - the Flyers have more “advisors” and “ambassadors” that are in their 70s-80s than probably any other franchise. They wheel out Bernie Parent’s corpse at every opportunity, or other old drunk guys. You’d think they had no stars since 1983 despite having several HOFers that the old guard has basically never allowed in “the club”. /FlyersJack

The difference (and it’s a very fine line) is that the Sixers weren’t benching good players in order to lose - they were avoiding even having any good players, and putting out lousy lineups that were guaranteed to lose. It’s basically the same, but technically they weren’t holding guys out or having ownership tell the coach to lose.

That “impending weather” turned out to be a picture-perfect 80-degree sunny day. The rescheduled date of Friday was a chilly-windy-cloudy 55 degree day. Sure glad they made that decision and ruined half of people’s plans. Was reading about the impact of the new scheduling when it comes to rainouts, and they really can’t have any since teams don’t visit each other as much anymore so doing it on a future off day when they’re back in town, or a future double header just won’t work in most cases. Also, the home team controls rainouts for division-games only… through the midpoint of the season. MLB controls everything else - 85% of the games. So expect to sit through a lot of delays, and players will be playing in poor conditions because of the new format.

There was a time that Philadelphia was considered (by Sporting News) the “best hockey city in America”. https://www.nhl.com/flyers/news/philadelphia-named-best-hockey-city-by-i-the-sporting-news-i/c-434762 Snider had a lot in common to Steinbrenner, with the exception of the championships. But he was also exceptional in the community. I don’t think the Flyers will ever be in “trouble”, since they (though “they” no longer literally means “they” like it “wink wink” did, and now literally means “the entity that owns them” still owns the arena, most of NBCSN (formerly all, but they ceded a share to the Phillies in their >$1B deal), and various other assets. But in terms of relevancy, other than the blue-collar Delco and Northeast people who would go to games if they were affordable, nobody at all cares. They also moved to the “other” FM sports radio station (along with the Sixers) and even fewer people listen to them (WIP retained the consolation prize of the Eagles and Phillies, and their evening show that doesn’t even have a permanent host now still outrates live sports on the other station.) As a lad, I discovered hockey in ‘86-‘87, when they were in the finals every year (but you couldn’t watch any home games without Prism, and I was able to watch games by turning the giant antenna on our house to watch the Rangers channel) but fell out of love because we weren’t wealthy enough that I could actually play. but I still watched every game because I was used to it. Then lockout happened and I never got back into it. Then Snider died, and I’m not sure I could even get back on board if they made a miracle finals run. Combined with the general lowering of class (or maybe leveling out?) of the fan base and not wanting to be associated with them (granted, every fan base in every sport has that element, but as someone who lives here and rides trains with the few suburban fans brave enough to do that, I’m tired of listening to n-word and f-g from everyone in a Flyers jersey). That’s always been there, but was the minority because of how many other fans they had that weren’t like that. But now they’re gone. it’s sad. Shoulda kept the Phantoms and exiled the Flyers to Allentown instead.

I’m in phone and would like to discuss more but can’t now. Here’s immediate thoughts. I’m not certain about the rent situation. Also while I LOVE Inga’s writing, that one particular article has been a rare one that’s been intensely criticized for blending fact with opinion, glossing over things like that the plan was modified to not interfere with the station (they were like “ok, we won’t put the court level underground. Cool.”) and not citing sources. She’s an architecture critic and very well educated in city planning and history (and a deserving Pulitzer winner) but that particular article fell a little short. I’m a member of SkyScraperPages, where Philly is among the most discussed cities in the country (probably 3rd), and she even got shredded there, where she’s usually held in high esteem. There’s little-to-no impact on j Market East station (Jefferson is the recent corporate name.) and honestly - as a daily regional rail rider, it’s nothing special at all. There’s some tiles. Cool. There’s also urine and a lot of ‘80s mall going on - and not in a charming way. It’s totally privately funded, and it remains to be seen what (if any) impact it would have on Chinatown. That’s my biggest concern, and is why I was against that particular site for the Phillies ballpark, but there’s yet to be any actual explanation about how this particular plan will damage that community - it neighbors it, but doesn’t actually infringe on any of it, and there’s no evidence (at least that I’ve seen) that it would drive up values of anything that would push that community out. Most of it is owned not leased, and they’re not going to cannibalism themselves so some crappy sports bar can pay them higher rent. There’s also zero gentrification risk in that area, for lots of complicated reasons. The situation is very different than DCs, where eminent domain was used. I’m in favor of anything that forces improvements to mass transit and safety, and this plan does. I’m also in favor of anything that gets more people coming in on trains vs cars, and this would basically be our MSG. That part of center city is a complete shiz hole, and has been my entire life. It’s a complete embarrassment, and it’s sad that tourists have to look at it because they don’t know any better that they should be in neighborhoods and not there. It’s pretty funny listening to scared suburban fans who fear anything that challenges their desire to drive their unnecessarily-large SUV to unnecessary surface parking lots. Anything that forces those patterns to change is a step in the right direction. This arena is a very complicated matter, and it’s a shame that so many are either “hell yeah!” or “worst. Idea. Ever.” EDIT: Ed Snider was low-key (or maybe not) one of the best founders/owners in all of sports. It’s been nothing short of astonishing what’s happened in the years since his death - and bewildering that there wasn’t a succession plan in place, and the “yeah it’s now Comcast-Spectacor, but really just Ed” deal is now “the hockey department of COMCAST, run by middle management”.

Yeah - at least it’s something I had heard of. But regardless of the name, the stacked design was awful. Simply replacing “devil” with “sting” is no better. You’re correct that both 98 team names were too much, as evident by the Diamondbacks own use of the stacked name and quick flip to the A-chest design. I hadn’t seen that, but yeah - for a fauxback alt, that works more for me than the stacked version and at least is the same name as the current team.

I still, 25 years later, can’t believe that made it to a major league field - both the name and the jersey design. since their throwback has already been modified to match their current colors, I’d like to see what it would look like if they dropped the Devil and matched the name as well. I think it’d still give considered a throwback design, but make more sense if it’s to be a full-time alt.

Not sure if this belongs here or not but it could turn out to be a bad business decision. The Flyers, who have been completely lost since Ed Snider died, are now trying to convince the Sixers to stop with their arena plan and stay at the Wells Fargo center (which is basically a new arena after the last several years of renovations). They’re even offering them partial ownership in the arena. They also have this hare-brained plan of building a 6,000 seat concert venue near the WF center and an apartment complex that absolutely nobody will want to live in. Since Snider died, the Flyers have been completely hapless in all areas, whether on the business side or the hockey side. This seems like desperation because they know they’ll not only lose concerts and other events to the new Sixers arena, but will likely have conflicting dates that will impact NBCSN and possibly reduce the value of that deal - and maybe the Sixers pull out of that too. To say the Flyers are rudderless would be an understatement. People thought Harris was just fronting with his arena plan so that he could wrestle a stake in the WF center from the Flyers, but he very much means business. Never thought I’d see the day the Sixers have more power than the flyers, but that could very well be the case within 6 years.

I miss @VitaminD

That's probably my favorite gif in board history.

I don't think that image confirms anything like that. Could very likely be just camera focus, jersey folding, or other things. Not saying you're wrong, but that's not enough evidence to even suggest that they've changed fonts.

He seems similar in some ways to Lesean McCoy, who had close to a dozen off-field transgressions that have been well documented, but on-field he seems like a great teammate and someone you could really win with. Granted, none of Newton's behavior (that I've ever seen) has been illegal - just idiotic - while McCoy should likely have done actual real time for assaulting at least one woman and striking a police officer (but the officers themselves were doing shady stuff and the DA at the time was on the payer's payroll (literally - he had to resign and was indicted on various charges) so they just let "boys be boys".)

Well if you're claiming "literally never", then, IIRC, he refused to talk to media after the Super Bowl, placing the burden on his teammates. He complained to kids about women that can't cook, can't clean, and don't know when to be quiet, and questioned how a female reporter can talk about football. But maybe I took that out of context... like he claims everything he's ever said has been (despite full context being available on recordings.) I couldn't care less about TD dances and taunting. In fact, I think there should be more of that. But I think it's beyond fair to question his character.... and maturity. And that would make me question if he's the kind of role model I'd want for a young and impressionable player. But I don't follow the team, so if people that do disagree, then that's cool - I hope he re-signs there. But the first time he has to play and gets louder cheers than the starter... then starts going on about how he should start, and the whole thing crumbles down, we'll see how that goes. I have no problem with a guy being confident or cocky. A player should be. And I love guys that add character and excitement to the game - TO was one of my favorite players. I just don't think that makes for a good backup QB.

Also is it just me or does that model have bosoms?

OMG. It’s not just that there’s so much white space, but it’s “off white” (or just a different material, but either way it stands out way more than it needs to.)

I've never seen Mission BBQ, but after identifying the M, now it's the only thing I see in that logo! Like... I don't even see a star. I see an M with some weird shape underneath it.

Well that's a relief. I was worried that he was going to say that he was going to "Tonya Harding" Jalen so that he could start, and that he didn't care about winning and was just in it for the money.

Is he really the kind of guy you want to "mentor" someone? Hasn't he had his share of maturity issues? I wouldn't want him at all as a backup, because he still thinks he's a starter (and he might be, but that's not the point.) I don't think you ever want a backup that thinks he should be the starter - could only cause problems. EDIT: I've made this point before, but I really think it's true. "Backup quarterback" is its own separate position, separate from "quarterback". It's a different role, requires a player to fully be committed to it and be able to balance being "always ready" with knowing that they're in a role that will likely see them spend most of their time helping the starter prep, and never play. For crappy teams it doesn't really matter much. but al true contenders need a professional "backup quarterback". The obvious case that I'll point to is Nick Foles. He was paid a ton of money to come in as Wentz' backup, and it paid off. It also helps if the "backup quarterback" has at least some similar skills to the starter, so the whole offense doesn't need to be rewritten (again - more important for contenders.) Eagles had this bite them last year when Hurts went down and Minshew played. They adjusted the offense, but it still didn't really work. I'm hoping that Mariota is ready to be a "backup quarterback" since it seems like he would be comfortable in the same offense as Hurts.

They’re keeping the shoulder numbers. That’s unfortunate.

That makes it seem like you only ever see a player's profile view and never both sleeves. While the one is facing the camera prior to the pitch, both sleeves are always visible at some point of the at bat, when while running bases, and pitching. Not arguing with you coz I know you're just giving their argument, I just think that their argument is overblown, and they should have started with one sleeve for the first round, and then seen if advertisers would be willing to pay an additional premium to get the rotating sleeve.

But how was it designed that way at a league level? Should have been something the individual teams decided. I obviously can't prove it, but I'm willing to bet that an advertiser wouldn't back out of a deal with the Yankees, Red Sox, Phillies, Dodgers, et al if they said that the patch could be on only one side. That's still a ton of exposure in huge local markets and lots of national games.

I'm confused about something - if the league is allowing advertising, but not requiring it, and there's no league-wide contract with any advertiser other than Nike, why are all the teams doing the alternating-sleeve method of showcasing the ad? Wouldn't it be up to them and whoever they sell their soul to? Couldn't the Phillies have kept their numbers and sold ad space on the other arm in a "take it or leave it" deal?

We'll have to wait till Sunday for cream. I'd be beyond shocked if they're gone. Thursday should be regular pinstripes - not the usual Thursday throwbacks since it's the home opener and they always wear the pinstripes regardless of day or night.